Don't allow irreversible enhancement of a child's body or brain until the person has become an adult
In short
- Doctors and companies cannot give children enhancements that are not treatment and cannot be undone.
- Even if parents want it, they wait until the child grows up and chooses for themselves.
- Only enhancements that go back to normal when removed are allowed for children.
- An independent review body decides, one case at a time, when it is unclear whether something is treatment or enhancement.
- Rewriting the genes of an embryo before birth for the same purpose is also banned.
If this comes true
A girl who has just turned eighteen listens to an explanation of a brain device that boosts memory, decides on her own, "I'm fine the way I am," and cuts a cake with her mother.
Perhaps
The gap may grow between these children and children in nearby countries who were enhanced when young, and children who were made to wait might grow up and regret that they cannot catch up.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal bans acting on the body or brain in ways that cannot be undone, for children under eighteen and for embryos before birth, when the aim is not to treat or prevent illness but to go beyond the ordinary range of human ability. It covers things like brain implants that raise memory or focus and do not return to normal once removed, gene rewriting that changes growth or the nature of muscles, and the regular use of drugs that change a child's brain development for a long time. On the other hand, wearable devices that return to normal when taken off, and anything whose effect disappears when stopped, are allowed with a parent's consent and a doctor's check. Treating illness or disability and preventing serious illness are not covered, but cases on the border between treatment and enhancement are judged one by one by an independent review body made up of doctors, ethics experts, advocates for children's rights, and groups of the people affected, and when in doubt, the decision leans toward waiting. Medical workers who break the rule have their licenses suspended, and taking a child abroad to get the same procedure is treated the same as breaking the rule at home. Once the person turns eighteen, they can get it by their own decision, and until then parents are free to save up money for it. The review body's decisions are recorded with their reasons, so that decisions in similar cases line up.
BenefitsLeaves the right to decide about one's body and mind with the person
The greatest value of this proposal is that it returns a decision that cannot be undone to the person who will carry it for life. If people choose for themselves as adults, both those who are enhanced and those who are not can accept the result as their own choice. For parents too, when other families start enhancing one after another, they are no longer cornered into thinking "it's bad for my child if only we don't do it," and since everyone waits at the same line, a race for a speed that nobody wants is less likely to happen. Because things that can be removed and undone are allowed, children are not deprived of all the benefits of technology, and the freedom to try something and stop remains. Also, because no market grows for irreversible procedures on children, it prevents the danger that technology whose safety has not been fully confirmed is tried on children at a vulnerable age. By judging the border between treatment and enhancement one case at a time in the review body and recording the reasons, the debate over where society should draw its line will also deepen, supported by concrete examples.
DrawbacksGives up effects that can only be gained in childhood
If there are interventions that work because the body and brain are still growing, waiting until eighteen means giving up those effects for good. Even if the grown-up person thinks "I wish it had been done when I was a child," it cannot be recovered. This ban protects a future person who would not want enhancement, but in exchange it takes away the chance of a future person who would want it, and nobody knows which kind of person is more common. The border between treatment and enhancement is also blurry, and in cases like short height or learning difficulties, where opinions split over whether to call it an illness, the review body's decision may feel to some families like an unreasonable refusal. Also, wealthy families that can travel to countries without rules will look for loopholes, and since enforcement cannot be complete, there is a risk that in the end only the children of families who follow the rules are protected. If more countries do not ban it, the gap in ability with children in those countries will grow, and pressure to loosen the rules in the name of national competitiveness will also grow. Having the state stop a choice that parents make believing it is for their child's future is also a heavy intrusion on family freedom.
Learn the background
Brain implants, gene rewriting, and drugs that raise ability were first created to treat illness, but using them to extend the abilities of healthy people has started to look realistic. Children in particular are still growing in body and brain, so acting early is thought to have a bigger effect, and this draws the interest of parents who want to give their child a head start and of businesses that want to sell it. But acting on a child in a way that cannot be undone means other people decide the shape of that person's body and mind for life, before the person can judge for themselves. Even if the grown-up person did not want the enhancement, it cannot be taken back. Until now, children's medicine has worked on the assumption that parents decide out of concern for their child, but unlike treatment, enhancement has no reason of the kind "harm will come if we don't do it," and parents' wishes and competition with others move the decision. If some families go ahead with enhancement, other families follow out of fear of being left behind, and a competition that nobody wants begins. As long as it is left to parents' freedom, this competition cannot be stopped.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes